Re: Is it time to remove python-numpy from testing?

2020-07-09 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 09-07-2020 21:16, peter green wrote: > All of the reverse dependencies of python-numpy have already been > removed from testing. So IMO > it makes sense to remove python-numpy from testing at this point, do > other people agree? I think it makes sense, so I added a removal hint. Paul

Re: cannot allocate memory in static TLS block (Was: Bug#953832: drmaa: autopkgtest failure: RuntimeError: Could not find drmaa library)

2020-03-14 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Andreas, On 14-03-2020 14:30, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Paul, [...] > Any help would be welcome I can't help you with this. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye

2019-12-14 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear all, TL;DR: as the subject suggests, proposal included, although not fully aligned with others. On 08-12-2019 20:55, Sandro Tosi wrote: > there seems to be disagreement on how to proceed, so for the time > being i suspended the severity bump part of the py2removal tracking > script. let me

Re: Severity bump script

2019-12-05 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 03-12-2019 13:19, Matthias Klose wrote: > It's unfortunate that issues for some packages only get attention when the > severity of an issue is raised. Following your proposal means that the issue > is > probably ignored forever, and you don't propose a better way going forward, > just >

Re: Severity bump script

2019-12-02 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 02-12-2019 22:15, Sandro Tosi wrote: > the blocks are only between py2removal packages, so if a package > un-related to the py2removal effort > depend/recomments/b-deps/autotest-triggers a py2removal *application*, that > is still considered a leaf package You'll fix that, right? Because

Re: Severity bump script

2019-12-02 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Ondrej, On 02-12-2019 20:33, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > po 2. 12. 2019 v 20:28 odesílatel Paul Gevers <mailto:elb...@debian.org>> napsal: > > I understand the drive to push for Python 2 removal and sympathize with > it. The issue I had yesterday wit

Re: Severity bump script

2019-12-02 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 01-12-2019 22:45, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Paul, this is the thread i was talking about. > > you were copied in the original email: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00098.html > > if there is something the RT wants to discuss about this effort, > please do so here, not

Re: Discussing next steps for the Python2 removal

2019-10-22 Thread Paul Gevers
Dear all, On 22-10-2019 17:04, Matthias Klose wrote: > He suggested to make the removal plan more > concrete and having a timeline. To be more precise on what I meant, I'm talking here about *every* package that wants to drop a Python 2 binary package, discuss (and ideally agree on, but I

Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?

2019-09-12 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 12-09-2019 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote: > But we need to be clear what's going on and communicate early. Yes, not on the front page, but there is (first bullet): https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#deprecated-components Paul signature.asc

Re: unblock request: python-scipy/1.1.0-4 skimage/0.14.2-2: autopkgtest passes (Re: bug#919929)

2019-03-16 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 16-03-2019 13:48, Drew Parsons wrote: >> The numpy.sparse tests pass with this patch, and most of the matrix >> PendingDeprecationWarnings are gone (the upstream patch missed >> integrate/tests/test_ivp.py, but the remaining warnings are few enough >> to not need to worry about). > >

Re: python-scipy: autopkgtest fails (Re: bug#919929)

2019-03-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 07-03-2019 14:56, Drew Parsons wrote: > On 2019-03-07 20:46, Paul Gevers wrote: >> However, it is probably worth waiting for a resolution of bug >> 915738 and combine it with that. > > There hasn't been recent movement on 915738. I'll apply Julian's patch >

Re: python-scipy: autopkgtest fails (Re: bug#919929)

2019-03-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 07-03-2019 13:19, Drew Parsons wrote: >> Can you elaborate why you think that bug should be RC (as that isn't >> clear to me from the report itself) and why you haven't marked it as >> such if you think it should be? > > python-scipy is currently failing all debci tests in both

Re: python-scipy: autopkgtest fails (Re: bug#919929)

2019-03-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Drew, On 07-03-2019 09:03, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 07:01:54PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote: >> python-scipy has recently started failing all debci tests in testing and >> unstable, exacerbating the bug report in Bug#919929 [1]. >> >> The failing error is a MemoryError. But

Re: Numpy migration?

2019-01-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Mattia, all, On 07-01-2019 17:20, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:03:11AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >> Mattia Rizzolo writes: >>> On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: Now it turns out that there is a new migration problem, which is aplpy: